The media world has changed.
Once upon a time, if you worked in Washington as a press secretary to a Senator or powerful Congressman and you wanted to get your boss some TV coverage from one of the Big Three networks of the day - ABC, CBS or NBC - the formula was simple.
First you got warmed up to a print journalist, preferably for The New York Times. Once The Times ran your story, it was a certainty that the newsies at one if not more than one of the Big Three TV networks would see the story as The Times was must-reading.
In the 1960’s and beyond one could safely count on the fact that, say, CBS’s Walter Cronkite read The Times every day. And if the story was good enough for The Times readers, it was, went the thinking, more than good enough for the CBS or ABC or NBC audience.
Times have changed. Now, in today’s 21st century world where everyone starting with your Uncle Ed has a computer and online capability, the task of getting attention for your news has changed.
Now the world is awash in what is known as the “podcast” - a development that lets you, your Uncle Ed or anybody else take a seat in their own quarters, wherever that might be, and broadcast away. Living room? Kitchen? Home office? Other? Hey. Whatever works.
And work it does.
This very week’s example is provided by former Fox host Tucker Carlson. Sitting in his residence in rural Maine, Tucker invited one Nick Fuentes, described over at The New York Times as “a 27-year-old white nationalist” to sit for an interview on Tucker’s podcast, the aptly named “The Tucker Carlson Show.” Fuentes cooperated, did the interview, and, understandably, to understate, all h…e…double “L” broke loose.
I’ll leave it to others to analyze the Tucker, Fuentes interview and the substance of their talk. Although I have to say that giving a self-professed Nazi any attention at all, knowing all the utter evil that Naziism has been responsible for in history, is wildly not a good idea. Particularly when it comes from someone of Tucker’s stature. But this is a media column, and it is very safe to say that, while not much is focused on the fact, one very interesting and unremarked fact here is how this story made so much serious news to begin with. Its reverberations reaching all the way back to roil the massive, conservative quarters of The Heritage Foundation in Washington.
The obvious here? Podcasts have changed the media world. Anyone, anywhere - Tucker Carlson in this case - can sit out in the figurative or even literal woods, talk into a home microphone or microphone and camera combination and let loose with their take on the latest events in the world. A computer button is pressed and - wham! His or her views on whatever have just gone viral, thanks to the wizardry of the 21st century podcast.
The inevitable question old timers in the media world will have is - is this a good thing? Wasn’t the world better off when the editors of The New York Times chose what did-or did not - appear in its pages? Wasn’t the world better off when the revered “Uncle Walter” (as he was nicknamed) Cronkite decided what did or did not make the national TV news after he had read whatever story in The Times?
And if something went wrong with that old formula?
In fact, something did go wrong - just like that! - over at ABC on the day President Reagan was shot in a 1981 assassination attempt by would-be assassin John Hinkley. Reagan had given a speech at the Washington Hilton Hotel and as he emerged from the hotel, Hinckley, blended into the scrum of reporters covering Reagan, pulled his gun and fired. Both Reagan, his press secretary Jim Brady, a Secret Service agent and a DC police officer were hit, with all surviving if wounded.
Suffice to say, this was decidedly live news for the television anchors of the day, who instantly interrupted their network’s normal day schedule of soap operas and such to report what they knew.
Here is the Wikipedia description of what followed with ABC anchor Frank Reynolds. Reynolds was erroneously given to understand that Brady had been shot - and had died. So Reynolds reported what he had been told - only to find out that Brady had survived. The rest went like this, bold print for emphasis supplied:
Upon learning that the information regarding Brady was incorrect, Reynolds suddenly appeared noticeably upset and, looking around at staffers in the background, angrily burst out:
'Let's get it nailed down ...somebody ...let's....find out! Let's get the word here, let's get it straight so we can....we can report this accurately!'
Such was the problem of live television in the middle of a seriously real, ongoing national crisis. There was no time for a well-vetted report in The New York Times.
And now? In the 21st century land of the podcast? There can easily be no editor at all other than the podcaster himself or herself.
Suffice to say, in this recent situation, Tucker Carlson was comfortable in letting Fuentes speak for himself, uninterrupted. And while Tucker is catching heat for this, the fact of the matter is that in the world of 21st century podcasting media, what has just happened with this situation is normal. The podcaster is the editor.
Back in the wayback of the Watergate scandal, when the history books of the episode were written, it became clear that the ace young Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were closely supervised by editor Ben Bradlee. And if Bradlee thought there was not enough hard fact in their latest reporting, he adamantly refused to run it, arguments from his two young reporters be damned. Bradlee was the editor - the guy in charge of these type of decisions - and he famously let them know it.
All which is to say, the media world has changed - and thanks to the 21st century media of the podcast, it has changed big time.
Which is exactly why Tucker Carlson’s Fuentes interview is everywhere.
The podcast, edited or unedited by the podcaster as he or she chooses, is here. It has taken over - and it’s here to stay.
Whether anyone else likes it - or not.
